From your vantage point at GHD, what strategies are most effective for engaging with government agencies and regulators to shape practical, science-informed contaminated land and groundwater policies?
- Being involved in professional and industry associations creates a collaborative platform where regulators, consultants, and researchers can exchange ideas. These forums support the alignment of policy development with real-world technical challenges and emerging science.
- By partnering with universities and research organisations, we help shape policy frameworks that reflect the latest science and technology. This collaboration bridges the gap between theoretical research and applied practice in contaminated land and groundwater management.
- We actively participate in preparing and reviewing guidelines, standards, and regulatory frameworks. By providing technical input during consultation phases, we support the development of policies that are scientifically robust and practical to implement.
- Consistent, transparent communication fosters trust with regulators. By demonstrating our commitment to shared objectives, such as protecting human health and the environment, we position ourselves as a credible partner in shaping policy.
- We see significant potential to work with regulators earlier in the policy development process. This approach enables us to proactively share insights from project experience, highlight practical implementation challenges, and co-develop solutions that balance scientific rigor with operational feasibility.
How can scientists and consultants collaborate more effectively with Indigenous communities to integrate traditional knowledge into site assessments and remediation plans?
- Effective collaboration with Indigenous communities requires openness, humility and a willingness to build trust over time, particularly in communities where trust has previously been eroded.
- Early engagement is essential. This includes exploratory conversations, introductions and identifying the appropriate community contacts.
- We should be open to community-led processes and adapt our methods to incorporate traditional knowledge, recognising it as complementary to Western science.
- During all site visits, teams must respect cultural protocols, such as gender-based areas, and use gender-appropriate teams when required.
- Practical engagement includes walks on country and open-ended discussions to help us understand Indigenous observations and knowledge of the land.
- It is important to value Indigenous expertise and make sure their voices are central throughout the process, informing assessments and plans rather than being used solely as feedback at the end.
- All consultation and knowledge exchange with Indigenous stakeholders should uphold the principles of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), and ensure the protection of Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property (ICIP) rights.
What lessons has GHD learned about building long-term, respectful relationships with Indigenous stakeholders on complex environmental projects?
- Building trust takes time and requires ongoing, respectful engagement. Our experience is that these relationships grown stronger through longevity and consistency.
- We involve Indigenous stakeholders from the beginning of our projects. This approach leads to better outcomes and fosters meaningful partnerships. We value Indigenous stakeholders as trusted and respected advisors throughtouy our work.
- Respect for people’s time is essential. We recognise the need to fairly compensate Indigenous participants for their knowledge and contributions, as their time is often in high demand across multiple projects.
- Indigenous stakeholders may have cultural obligations to participate, which can make their involvement different from standard public consultation.
- Recognising and valuing traditional knowledge as equal to scientific expertise is key to building mutual respect.
In projects involving sensitive contamination issues, what engagement practices best build trust and encourage meaningful participation from local communities?
- Openness and transparency are essential for building productive relationships with local communities. Communities can recognise when information is being withheld, so it’s important to be upfront, even about challenging issues.
- Engagement teams should listen empathetically, give community members a safe space to express concerns, and respond constructively to criticism.
- Our engagement draws on outrage management principles, such as those from Sandman: engage early, be responsive, build trust, and always follow through on commitments.
- Listening should come before presenting facts. People need to feel heard before they can engage with technical information.
- Empowering communities to participate in decision-making, such as choosing between remediation options, helps build trust and ownership.
Are there international engagement models or collaborative networks that Australasia’s contaminated land and groundwater sector could emulate?
- The Sandman outrage model is commonly used by regulators and is recommended for building capability in this sector.
- International conferences and networks, such as the Flying Fox Conference, provide opportunities to discuss engagement and outrage management and learn about innovation in the industry.
- Collaborative networks, including the Australasian Environmental Law Enforcement and Regulators Network (AELERT), offer forums to share best practice and can support discussions on contamination and engagement topics. AELERT – Run by regulators, for regulators
- We see opportunities for further collaboration between industry groups, such as the Australasian Land and Groundwater Association (ALGA), and engagement practitioner networks, such as the Engagement Institute, to develop communities of practice focused on contaminated land and groundwater engagement.
This article was submitted by our Corporate Partner.